Interesting business name registered in the UK.
-
; DROP TABLE "COMPANIES";-- LTD
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if that could end up causing any issues if they were to become popular? :)
-
@Polygeekery Most businesses in the UK use .NET and probably ADO.NET that unless you are trying not to sanitise your database queries won't let you drop bobby tables.
-
-
Isn't it missing at least the single quote?
Wouldn't the query be something like
insert into companies (name) values ('$myvar');
So you would need to provide something like
');drop table companies;--
-
@dangeRuss Nah, you want it to insert, so when searched for it comes up as
select * from companies where name = '';DROP TABLE "COMPANIES";-- '
But yes, they need a single quote
-
Some time ago, I discovered that it would be possible to register the domain name suck.co.ck
But, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
-
Nature of business (SIC)
62020 - Information technology consultancy activities
which makes the missing leading
'
completely unforgivable.
-
@flabdablet I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt and buttume the leading quote was omitted, by accident or intentionally, at the Companies House end of things.
-
@lucas1 Yeah, quite probably.
I just checked Stack Overflow's 2016 survey, which somehow placed PHP/JS/SQL over C#/JS/SQL. It's hilariously awful, even if you ignore the "Star Wars vs Star Trek" bullshit question. The top 3 "full stack" technologies are...
- PHP / JS / SQL (23%)
- C# / JS / SQL (21.7%)
- C# / JS / SQL Server (20.6%)
And the summary is...
More Full-Stack Developers work with PHP than with any other Back-End language
@Tw@wood may have left CockOverflow, but his spirit lives on.
-
@tufty said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt
Pffft. They must know their Companies House listing is missing the leading quote. If they can't get an obvious issue like that attended to, why would I trust them to fix my own IT woes?
-
@El_Heffe I'm considering zom.biz
-
@tufty C# and ADO.NET is a mature piece of tech. So is PHP and PDO ...
I don't see how that is awful that developers are using well known technology to build stuff in. And btw this isn't the PHP 5.2 days. PHP 5.7 / 7 is decent.
-
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
I don't see how that is awful that developers are using well known technology to build stuff in.
I think his point is that an extraordinarily awful language (PHP) scored above an extraordinarily not awful language (C#).
-
@sloosecannon It is cheap to host, has well know problems and is considerably easier to deploy than most C# applications might be something to do with it.
Being easy suits the "Worse is better" philosophy
-
-
@tufty Registering a company only takes £15 and I don't think a bored teenager would try actually trying to drop the companies house tables. I with they would because I have to pay £5k in tax in feb.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
It is cheap to host
If you care nothing about
- security
- speed
- user privacy
- reliability
then sure. It's cheap to host.
Unfortunately in the real world, 90% of your applications should not fall into that category. So that advantage really shouldn't be an advantage...@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
has well know problems
As opposed to almost no problems?
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
is considerably easier to deploy than most C# applications
Point. Still, if you're not talking about shared hosting, the ease of deployment drops fairly dramatically.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
decent
??
Decent. For generous definitions of the word "Decent".
-
@sloosecannon If it was 2012 everything you said would be true. But PHP 5.2 is unsupported POS. None of those criticisms apply to anything that is modern
in the community. PHP 5.7 is good, it also disabled all the old crap out of the box that caused security problems.It is like saying that we should judge .NET 4.6.2 to .NET 1.1 sins. It is retarded.
Things move constantly in terms of tech and basing your opinions on an old version of a platform is really stupid. I build all my project in C# but I also make sure they run on Mono and thus Linux, even if old Mono builds were crap IMO.
I am not saying PHP 7 is perfect but the language has moved along a lot and people should give it a fair look.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Things move constantly in terms of tech and basing your opinions on an old version of a platform is really stupid. I build all my project in C# but I also make sure they run on Mono and thus Linux, even if old Mono builds were crap IMO.
Indeed. Good thing I'm not doing that.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
If it was 2012 everything you said would be true. But PHP 5.2 is unsupported POS. None of those criticisms apply to anything that is modern
in the community.So explain how the criticisms of shared hosting aren't valid? Hell, most shared hosting still forces you to use outdated PHP versions. I'd even argue that in 2012, you'd have more of a valid argument, since C#/.NET hosting wasn't as dirt cheap as it is today.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
I am not saying PHP 7 is perfect but the language has moved along a lot and people should give it a fair look.
Heh. So did they go full Python 2->3 and break all compatibility? Or is the old, useless crap still there, just deprecated?
I'm not saying PHP 7 is useless, but why would you use PHP when you could use something that won't accrue more technical debt than Trump's virtual firewall for very, very little cost (if any)?
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
So explain how the criticisms of shared hosting aren't valid? Hell, most shared hosting still forces you to use outdated PHP versions. I'd even argue that in 2012, you'd have more of a valid argument, since C#/.NET hosting wasn't as dirt cheap as it is today.
That is your hosting choices not the fault of PHP.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
That is your hosting choices not the fault of PHP.
True.
But if you go with better "hosting choices", they cost more.
Which removes the cost benefit.
-
@sloosecannon Still irrelevant to the argument. "This thing is crap because of this other thing they don't have any control over". It is a dumb argument.
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Heh. So did they go full Python 2->3 and break all compatibility? Or is the old, useless crap still there, just deprecated?
No PHP compiles in modules. They removed the shitty modules so they aren't compiled in now. I am sure someone that is more knowledgeable than I could tell you the full story.
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
I'm not saying PHP 7 is useless, but why would you use PHP when you could use something that won't accrue more technical debt than Trump's virtual firewall for very, very little cost (if any)?
You might already have a large PHP code base. You might want cheap hosting (PHP 7 will be still cheap than .NET).
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon Still irrelevant to the argument. "This thing is crap because of this other thing they don't have any control over"
Precisely what do you think we're arguing here? We're arguing about whether there's an advantage to going with PHP. I'm saying that your cost advantage is irrelevant if you don't go with shared hosting. And shared hosting forces you into old versions and other shitty things.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
You might already have a large PHP code base.
In which case this decision is already made for you.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
You might want cheap hosting
Yeah, cheap, insecure, shared hosting.
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
PHP 7 will be still cheap than .NET
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Yeah, cheap, insecure, shared hosting.
Depends who you are paying. Still not an argument about PHP itself.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Still not an argument about PHP itself.
Correct.
This is still not an argument about PHP itself, so it's still relevant.
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
[citation needed]
Also, consider that you can get .net hosting for a couple bucks a month.
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Precisely what do you think we're arguing here? We're arguing about whether there's an advantage to going with PHP. I'm saying that your cost advantage is irrelevant if you don't go with shared hosting. And shared hosting forces you into old versions and other shitty things.
What is every programmer in the area was a PHP programmer. It would be a massively cheaper to choose PHP than to ship .NET programmers in.
Language costs are almost nothing compared to staff.
.NET is fucking expensive especially if you use SQL Server but it is still cheaper than hiring loads of Oracle Admins and Java Experts.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Precisely what do you think we're arguing here? We're arguing about whether there's an advantage to going with PHP. I'm saying that your cost advantage is irrelevant if you don't go with shared hosting. And shared hosting forces you into old versions and other shitty things.
What is every programmer in the area was a PHP programmer. There would be a massively cheaper to choose PHP than to ship .NET programmers in.
Language costs are almost nothing compared to staff.
What if every programmer in the area was a .NET programmer. There would be a massively cheaper[sic] to choose .NET than to ship PHP programmers in.
Language costs are almost nothing compared to staff.
-
@sloosecannon What is your point? You are agreeing with me.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
.NET is fucking expensive especially if you use SQL Server but it is still cheaper than hiring loads of Oracle Admins and Java Experts.
Links in this post do not constitute endorsement or support. They're just here to prove a point
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon What is your point? You are agreeing with me.
My point is that the argument works both ways. Did you not notice the change in words?
-
@sloosecannon Right as you don't know numbers:
Say you hire 3 senior devs as permies.
that is £120,000 at best in the South. And that is cheap.
Your hosting costs on Azure is like £1000s a year at most.
-
@sloosecannon of course, but that was the entire point. That devs are more expensive than what they are programming in. It depends what your codebase is in and what the local market will give you.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Your hosting costs on Azure is like £1000s a year at most.
That's what really sucks about the .NET ecosystem.
-
@sloosecannon That is really cheap btw if you have a high traffic site. Also most companies if they are in the UK for various reasons can only use UK hosted solutions of Microsoft hosted solutions.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon of course, but that was the entire point. That devs are more expensive than what they are programming in. It depends what your codebase is in and what the local market will give you.
Right.
So, let's say the field is equal (which it is in most places).
Is PHP still viable?
-
@sloosecannon Depends what you are doing. PHP is always better for smaller sites.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon Depends what you are doing. PHP is always better for smaller sites.
Oh really? Why is that?
-
Ease of deploy (basically FTP UP). If it is a .NET site there could be dll deploy etc nonsense.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Ease of deploy (basically FTP UP). If it is a .NET site there could be dll deploy etc nonsense.
That depends entirely on the environment. It could also literally take one click.
Plus, as an extra bonus, you're not writing in a shitty language.
-
BTW if you are doing .NET stuff it makes sense to keep everything has MS as possible because it becomes a maintenance nightmare.
-
@sloosecannon said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
Plus, as an extra bonus, you're not writing in a shitty language.
It isn't that shitty anymore and tbh it was never that bad unless you are being a special snowflake.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
it was never that bad
Did you really make me post that article?
-
@sloosecannon It was years ago and is no longer relevant.
Did you miss the part about judging things now instead of what they were in the past.
There were plenty of shit things about .NET in the past.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
@sloosecannon It was years ago and is no longer relevant.
Did you miss the part about judging things now instead of what they were in the past.
There were plenty of shit things about .NET in the past.
Did you miss the part where you said "It was never that bad"?
I bolded the word in question, btw.
-
@sloosecannon That is not really a rebuttal unless you are going to be a pedant and ignore the overall point.
-
@lucas1 said in Interesting business name registered in the UK.:
unless you are going to be a pedant and ignore the overall point
YMBNH.